[Closed] £30 fine for crossing traffic lights on bike

What colour were the lights?

Was it a pedestrian crossing or a shared ped/bike crossing?

Do you mean jumping the lights or crossing the crossing?

Was he shouting at his own reflection in shop windows?

If it's just a pedestrian crossing, you should be off and pushing.

Highway Code, Rules for Cyclists 79 Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

If it's a 'toucan' crossing, you can ride across. In these, the green man will be a green man and green bike signal.

[img] [/img]

Not sure I'd get into an argument in the middle of the street if you were heading across at walking speed and being considerate. But strictly speaking he's right.

I was not arguing, genuinely bemused. I guess it was a pelican crossing (no green bike light) but is very wide and only him and me crossing.

Yep so as a rule you were in the wrong and could be fined.
If that matters or not is another matter.

What puzzles me is, why do people think it's okay to comments to cyclists? Would they stick their oar in if it was a pedestrian or car driver? Something about cycling seems to attract uninvited comment.

We held up traffic for a bit while he stood in front of me.

What is the thinking behind this? I take up less room on the bike then off.

Also he quoted a minimum width , I think 3m

Rule number 1 - Don't be a dick. Assuming you were following rule number 1 then he wasn't.

Ignore, move on.

Don't be a Dick rule applies in the absence of anyone with the ability to fine you. I think your pedestrian may fall foul of that.

EDIT: Snap!

And you can bet that if he was in a car behind you as you fought across three lanes of traffic to turn right, he would be frothing about that, too.

Look at is as riding across a pedestrian crossing being the same as riding along a (pedestrian) pavement

Either way right or wrong ..I think if anyone was having a go at me in the middle of a crossing I would tell him to get in touch with himself ..the arrogant arsehole

[img] [/img]

Your only crime is letting him live

The Highway Code is not the law, so the only thing they could do you for is dangerous cycling.

Tell him to write a stern letter to the editor of the Daily Mail.

My son was told off for crossing a dual carriageway on his bike using the pedestrian crossing. Going to school, in his uniform. On a bike. Across a busy dual carriageway. On his bike. Going to school.
I definitely would have killed the person who did this if I'd known who it was. Killed them dead. Death would actually be too good for them. A few years of torture first maybe.

The greater crime here is using 'then' when you mean 'than'.

It works both ways guys, if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and not just seen as road tax avoiding, congestion causing menaces (i believe that's the common misconception among anti cycling mouth breathers)...then we have to ride to a decent standard, jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think...just because you think it only affects you if it goes wrong is irrelevant, I used to ride my motorbike like a ****, if I got it wrong nobody but me paid the price but that's not how the public and the law see it.

Good news if traffic wardens and coppers start dishing out fines to nob'ead cyclists.

this has nothing to do with jumping red lights.

Still time to edit, deviant. 😆

jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think.

Which is why no car driver ever in the entire history of this country has ever done so....

this has nothing to do with jumping red lights.

Which is why no car driver ever in the entire history of this country has ever done so....

In this case however I agree the pedestrian was more in the wrong 😛

It works both ways guys, if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and not just seen as road tax avoiding, congestion causing menaces (i believe that's the common misconception among anti cycling mouth breathers)...then we have to ride to a decent standard, jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think..

Oh DO **** off with that collective responsibility bollocks.

I could write a letter to every household owning a bicycle asking them all if they'd mind awfully not jumping any lights and it would make ****-all difference. I could stop, dismount and doff my cap to every driver passing me and that too would make ****-all difference.

I'll ride based on my safety and convenience, the safety and convenience of other road users and then the law.
If it's safer for me to cross a road or to duck around / through a junction to get away from traffic (which by the way also helps the "traffic" as I get out of the way) then I'll do it.

There is no collective repsonsibility so PLEASE stop propogating that bullshit.

[i]There is no collective repsonsibility so PLEASE stop propogating that bullshit.[/i]

+1

+ 1 Well said

Zombies dont need a reason to hate, they just hate.

If it's just a pedestrian crossing, you should be off and pushing.

If there is a shared use path either side of the crossing, it's not illegal to cycle on a zebra crossing.

To the best of my knowledge you can't get a fine for riding across the carriageway. Pedal cycles are freely allowed on it.

You can, however, be fined for cycling on a footway, so the legal issue with riding across a crossing is dependent on what's either side of it: if it's footway, it's illegal to ride on, but if it's a shared foot-/cyclepath then it's legal.

The Highway Code is not law: you can't be fined for contravening its rules. So this…

Yep so as a rule you were in the wrong and could be fined.

…is wrong. The crossing is not a footway, it is part of the carriageway.

The "don't be a dick" rule applies in up to three ways here, depending on the actual context:

1. Don't be a dick by cycling in a way which poses risk to others.
2. Don't be a dick by making up things about £30 fines to have a go at people who aren't posing a risk to others.
3. Most importantly of all, don't be a dick by creating crap infrastructure where people on bikes face few pragmatic choices other than to use pedestrian routes (or to never bother taking a bike out of the house) or where small gaps in fragmented cycling infrastructure cause inevitable conflicts such as this.

As for this…

if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and…

…fetch me these:

[img] [/img]

Anyway, the OP's pedestrian was also breaking the law.

Pedestrians not to delay on crossings

19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997

There's no "also" about it. There is actually a law (that really * one that can * off) about dawdling on a crossing, but there isn't one about riding a pedal cycle on a crossing.

Ironically, if you remember the viral video of the pedestrian walking backwards into a cyclist on a zebra crossing, the pedestrian was potentially breaking two laws (the above plus assault) and the cyclist was breaking none (though, like the pedestrian, was still being a dick). But, y'know… where's the headline in that, eh?

Yeah, I think Onzadog got it right about 6 posts in.

Shared use one side, I was crossing to get on road as cycle lane had run out.

Love the law that he was breaking.

Then your problems here are:

a) people who think they know the law but don't, and
b) people who think they can design infrastructure but can't.

Crack on, you're fine; just being a bit cheeky with no harm done, like crossing at a toucan when there's a red man and nothing coming: entirely legal, perfectly harmless in the right context, just disadvised by the Highway Code.

If people want to start imagining laws that don't exist, there's not much you can do about it.

If people want to start imagining laws that don't exist, there's not much you can do about it.

There certainly is something you can do about it. You can citizens arrest them for breaking the law on making up laws

Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement. Although you could have ridden along the road, stopped in the gutter at one end of the crossing etc.

Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement.

The OP says that it's a shared path up to the crossing; in which case, probably not.

(Streetview link?)

I'll ride based on my safety and convenience, the safety and convenience of other road users and then the law.

Good luck with that....the law comes first and it can be an inflexible bastard, it rarely gives two hoots about your convenience.

While we're on this, and it's been something I've wondered for a while (but not worth a thread) - am I right to assume this is perfectly legal? -

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

Also, this at junctions as well as crossings? (assuming no prohibitions on pedestrians are in force).

FWIW on the OP's situation I'd concur with the consensus of "don't be a dick" - there are a couple of crossings on my commute I usually ride across, but if there are loads of pedestrians, or young kids, I'll dismount and walk it.

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

I'd cover that with the 'don't be a dick rule'

@simon

I should have added, I wouldn't do this if it involved barging across a crowd of pedestrians who were trying to cross the road. More the scenario where someone's pushed the button, then crossed in a natural gap in traffic, leaving the crossing to subsequently activate even though no one's waiting to cross.

Fair point though, cheers.

Good luck with that....the law comes first and it can be an inflexible bastard, it rarely gives two hoots about your convenience.

Some examples of non-plural hoot-giving inflexbile bastardry:

- many specialist lawyers claim up to 95% success rates in avoiding bans for clients with 12 or more points
- ACPO guidelines allow for 10%+2mph over the speed limit before ticketing or a course, and 15-26mph over the limit before prosecution (eg you won't normally be prosecuted for doing 49mph in a 30 limit)
- a number of police forces refuse to prosecute based on video evidence or refuse to even look at it
- Home Office guidance includes leniency regarding careful pavement cycling

I mean, that's just some really basic stuff, it's not going to the point of fishing around in specific cases at the excuses made for manifestly crap driving and suchlike. The law is remarkably flexible; the only real question is where the two hoots are directed through use of it.

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

Personally I'd suggest either stopping and waiting or, if you feel the urge to violate the red light, not going through the daft charade of walking to try and dodge the letter of the law when it's really no different to riding. And in anything but highly exceptional scenarios I'd suggest the former 😉

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

Devil's advocate time: how about if I pick the bike up and carry it over the line - it's not a vehicle any more, surely it's now luggage?

[i]Might not be being entirely serious before anyone else points out whichever rule no. "not being a dick" is.[/i]

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

AIUI you're considered to be a pedestrian if you're wheeling your bike.

There is nothing to stop you pushing a bike anywhere you like. Don't really see a problem with what you propose, unless as you say, there is a crowd of pedestrians to push through.

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing. If, however, the toucan is of the red man/green man but only a green bike type display, you can perfectly legally cycle over the red man. (Bez may well be referring to this, above)
Carry on as you were.

AIUI you're considered to be a pedestrian if you're wheeling your bike.

That's not the point. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden. (Consider getting out of a motor vehicle and pushing it through red lights.)

The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.

* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?

That's not the point. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden. (Consider getting out of a motor vehicle and pushing it through red lights.)

Of course it's the point, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to dismount and push your bike across a pelican crossing.

[quote=greyspoke ]Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement.

In the same way that leaving your car parked on the pavement is pretty good evidence that you drove on the pavement? £30 fines all round 😆

Yet another example of the multi-hootitude of the law. It works both ways guys - I'll stop breaking the law when cycling for my own convenience and safety just as soon as the laws I'm breaking are enforced for those driving motor vehicles. I'll just leave this one here for deviant to ponder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514

Of course it's the point, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to dismount and push your bike across a pelican crossing.

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. The legislation which pertains to the latter does not pertain to the former.

[quote=Bez ]The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.
* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

I thought there was case law which suggested otherwise for pushing a bicycle - I think the critical bit is the meaning of "propelling" and that pushing doesn't in fact count. In any case, as edlong suggests carrying your bicycle certainly doesn't count - I presume you could legally get out of your car and carry it through a red light 😉

Crank vs Brooks 1980
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_traffic_laws#Bicycles

The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.

* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

I'm guessing (cos I know Bez will know this and give us the true position) that somewhere in the RTA or other legislation that definition of a vehicle must be detailed - it can't be as simple as "a thing on wheels that can convey a person" as then you'd have skateboards, roller skates and those trainers with rollers in the soles that were all the rage with the kids a few years back falling under the RTA and kids in trainers being busted for rolling along the pavement (or forced to join traffic on the road).

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Are Running cyclecross style dismounts and shoulder at ped crossings legal if you get a red light?

They should put hurdles across the road in cross season..

Asking for an undertrained friend

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. So it's not the point.

What about arriving at the crossing, dismounting and crossing to the other pavement? There's a few cycle paths like that round here (i.e. on the wrong side of the road) and the easiest way to get to them at rush hour is just cross at a red light pedestrian crossing (may or may not be toucan).

If it's a Toucan, I'd say illegal (crossing the line whilst light is red), but probably not dickish (bikes are allowed to be on the other side of the line, bit like a non light controlled stop line)?

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Interesting, because in Scotland off-road it's a mechanical aid to walking (but still specifically banned from pavements).

Only potentially pertinent, since this case relates to a different offence, but pushing a bicycle is considered to be "in charge of" it:

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/drunk-cyclist-locked-up-and-prosecuted-under-140-year-old-law-1-8729870

Good old Crank v Brooks is only potentially pertinent, as well: it says that if you're pushing a bicycle then you're not driving/riding it. But, again, that's not the same as "propelling".

Haven't yet found a specific bit of case law regarding "propelling" when pushing…

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. The legislation which pertains to the latter does not pertain to the former.

That's not what you said though, is it? You said:

. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden.

The answer seems to be "it depends". There's a 9-page debate on this on the CTC forum, with no definitive answer. I can see nothing in law to stop you from dismounting before a red light, walking your bike along the pavement, then remounting on the other side.

it can't be as simple as "a thing on wheels that can convey a person" as then you'd have skateboards, roller skates and those trainers with rollers in the soles that were all the rage with the kids a few years back falling under the RTA and kids in trainers being busted for rolling along the pavement (or forced to join traffic on the road)

Skateboards are vehicles (see also scooters, pedal karts etc). Not sure about shoes with wheels.

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Essentially if it's a mechanical device that enables you to move without walking, it's a vehicle. If it has a means of propulsion which is neither human nor animal then it's also a mechanically-propelled vehicle, which is subject to a lot more legislation.

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?

(a)the red figures in the signs shown in diagrams 4003.5 and 4003.7 and the red cycle symbol in diagram 4003.7 (“the red signal”) can be internally illuminated by a steady light;

............

(4) The red signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which, in the interests of safety, pedestrians and pedal cyclists should not use the crossing and the green signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which pedestrians and pedal cyclists may use the crossing.

[quote=edlong ]I'm guessing (cos I know Bez will know this and give us the true position) that somewhere in the RTA or other legislation that definition of a vehicle must be detailed

Bicycles are legally carriages from 19th century acts and case law. Which I think means they count as vehicles when that is mentioned in later law - though I note that the offence of cycling (or driving) on the footway is still covered under 19th century law (1835 Highways Act IIRC). Bez may have slightly more detailed info, though in general I agree with him that a bicycle counts as a vehicle (though not a mechanically propelled vehicle, which is an important distinction).

Though as already mentioned, Crank vs Brooks makes it clear that they only count as a vehicle when they're being ridden.

That's not what you said though, is it? You said:

Yup, but what I meant was that it's totally irrelevant whether or not you're a pedestrian and it's totally irrelevant to talk about pelican crossings. What's relevant is whether, in accordance with the wording of S36 of RTA1988 (which is what covers violating a red light), pushing a vehicle amounts to propelling it.

I can see nothing in law to stop you from dismounting before a red light, walking your bike along the pavement, then remounting on the other side.

Ah, but that's a completely different thing to what was proposed earlier, which was pushing a pedal cycle across a solid white line under a red light. If you lift the bike onto the pavement and walk past the line that way then you don't traverse that line, and you need to discuss completely different legislation.

Blimey! I've learned something new today:

That it's not an offence to cross a road with a red man/bicycle symbol showing…?

Essentially if it's a mechanical device that enables you to move without walking, it's a vehicle.

Wheelchair users are worse lawbreakers than cyclists then! They're generally on the pavement rather than chancing it in the traffic in my experience.

should have registration plates and insurance, compulsory testing.... would now be the right moment to mention road tax?

EDIT: Serious question - does this mean that in law, wheelchairs are vehicles and their users should be using them as such in line with the RTA etc?

Well, you may have noticed the media increasing the pressure for those things in regard to mobility scooters…

£30 pales into insignificance compared to the 160€, the 125€ and the 86€ fines I've received in Germany for going against the red light... All of them on bike paths!

OK, the 160€ might be because I insulted the police woman by asking her if she thought it was a good use of her time and whether she was proud of what she was doing.

The 120€ was because I was wheeling the bike whilst going over red... He said I was out of control.

Yay! Germany!

I was thinking more of the traditional, manually propelled ones.. If wheelchair users decided to take that one on and do a "critical mass" type thing through city traffic it would be a sight to behold.

Yup, but what I meant was that it's totally irrelevant whether or not you're a pedestrian and it's totally irrelevant to talk about pelican crossings. What's relevant is whether, in accordance with the wording of S36 of RTA1988 (which is what covers violating a red light), pushing a vehicle amounts to propelling it.

Yes - in relation to the specific circumstance you describe.

Ah, but that's a completely different thing to what was proposed earlier, which was pushing a pedal cycle across a solid white line under a red light. If you lift the bike onto the pavement and walk past the line that way then you don't traverse that line, and you need to discuss completely different legislation.

That's why I said "it depends"! We're talking about cyclists performing some very similar actions, but falling within the remit of different pieces of legislation, which impose different requirements.

Anyway, I must go. On my cycle home, I will cross the road using a toucan crossing, which has a segregated cycle path either side of it. Apparently, that's illegal unless I push across...

[quote=Bez ]Only potentially pertinent, since this case relates to a different offence, but pushing a bicycle is considered to be "in charge of" it:
> http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/drunk-cyclist-locked-up-and-prosecuted-under-140-year-old-law-1-8729870
Good old Crank v Brooks is only potentially pertinent, as well: it says that if you're pushing a bicycle then you're not driving/riding it. But, again, that's not the same as "propelling".
Haven't yet found a specific bit of case law regarding "propelling" when pushing…

This is really nitpicking stuff 😉 I agree with the interpretation there, clearly you're still in charge of a bicycle when pushing it (in the same way you're in charge of a car when sitting in the driver's seat with the keys). However that says nothing at all about the situation regarding other laws. For those Crank vs Brooks is still the definitive judgement - the lack of any more recent judgements on the issue or similar issues coming up in searches suggests quite strongly that no other similar cases have made it to appeal. Hence until there is a case taken to appeal it would take a brave magistrate (and indeed a brave prosecutor) to rule in a way which would appear to contradict Crank vs Brooks even in a case where the details aren't exactly the same.

I'd suggest that in the absence of any specific case law regarding pushing a bicycle over a stop line (and there doesn't appear to be any), that the wording of Crank vs Brooks certainly does apply.

BTW this is a handy resource for general cycling legal stuff http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ (though I wouldn't use it as a specific reference)

Blimey! I've learned something new today:

That it's not an offence to cross a road with a red man/bicycle symbol showing…?

Yes - in relation to the specific circumstance you describe. That's why I said "it depends"!

Well, I was replying to a very specific question, hence the specific response 😉

[quote=Bez ]b) people who think they can design infrastructure but can't.

I've found such people put up handy signs to indicate this:

[img] [/img]

Well, I was replying to a very specific question, hence the specific response

I always thought of specificity as a binary thing... 😉

in the same way you're in charge of a car when sitting in the driver's seat with the keys

To go off yet further on a tangent I was recently informed by a copper that the received wisdom that you can be done just for sitting in the driving seat of a car, with the keys, pissed, is a bit of a "QI Klaxon" fallacy.

"To prove drunk in charge contrary to s4 you have to be able to prove an intention to drive." apparently.

Is that multiple "cyclists dismount" photo actually real? I always assumed it was photoshopped..

However that says nothing at all about the situation regarding other laws. For those Crank vs Brooks is still the definitive judgement

Hmm. We have three concepts in statute: "being in control of", "driving" (or riding; the two are equivalent), and "propelling".

It is established that pushing a pedal cycle constitutes one of these and does [i]not[/i] constitute one other. We have not yet established as to the third, and that's the one which relates to the original question. (Note that S36 specifically does not use the verbs "drive" or "ride", even though both are used extensively in the same act.)

In terms of mechanics, to push something is certainly to propel it, and I would personally expect the law to agree.

Street view of the crime scene:

https://goo.gl/maps/sCyuqk9uc6A2

In terms of mechanics, to push something is certainly to propel it, and I would personally expect the law to agree.

Okay.... so how about a bike that was propelled, but then proceeds under no control, or propulsion. Picture the scene:

You are very near the top of a hill on a road. The road continues over the summit and then down a very long hill. You push the bike with just enough force to get it over the summit, and release it. It proceeds over the summit (just) and then gathers more and more speed as it descends the other side.

The propulsion you provided was only enough to get it just over the summit - the rest of the force acting on it was gravity.

Ignoring other offences that might arise in this scenario (such as manslaughter by gross negligence!), would the vehicle be considered legally to have been propelled by you as it accelerated down the hill?